The proviso to r. 6 of the Punjab Police
Service Rules, 1959 relating to the appointment to the higher posts of Deputy
Superintendents of Police provided that only those inspectors would be eligible
for promotion who had got six years' continuous service (officiating as well as
substantive) in the rank of inspector. Sub-rule (2) required that a list
(called List 'G') of officers considered fit for promotion to the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police be prepared by the State Government in
consultation with the State Public Service Commission and appointments shall be
made by promotion from persons brought on that list. In view of an urgent need
to make a number of appointments of Deputy Superintendents of Police, an executive
order was issued in 1965 reducing the period of six years continuous service to
four years. Respondents 4 to 37 were accordingly promoted on an ad hoc basis as
officiating Deputy Superintendents of Police. The first list 'G' prepared in
term of r. 6(2) was sent for approval of the Service Commission on 7th January,
1966 and in September, 1966 a supplementary list of inspectors who had
completed four years' service after 7th January, 1966 was sent to the
Commission. Both the lists were eventually approved by the Service Commission
in September, 1970.

The appellants who were appointed as
inspectors in May, 1963 were confirmed in May, 1966 and completed six years of
service in May, 1969. Their names were not included in either the first or the
supplementary list 'G' sent by the State Government to the Service Commission
whereas the names of respondents 4 to 37 found a place in the list.

In rejecting the appellants' writ petition
the High Court held that they had not qualified themselves for inclusion of
their names in List 'G' at the time that list was drawn up by the State
Government in 1966 because they had not put in the requisite period of service
for being considered for inclusion in it.

Dismissing the appeal;

HELD : 1. The appellants were not eligible
for inclusion in List 'G' prepared in 1966 on the basis of the State
Government's recommendation made in January and September of that year because
at the relevant time only those inspectors who had put in six years of
continuous service as inspector were eligible for promotion. No further
supplement to List 'G' was sent for the Commission's approval after 1966. In
other words the final List 'G' related only to the year 1966. The appellants
who by then had not put in even four years' service could not have been
promoted. [199 F, H]

2. Because of the extraordinary situation
which had developed on the borders of the State, the State Government was
driven to the necessity of making some 195 ad hoc or temporary appointments,
but it cannot be said that by reason of this, the appointments so made were
made wilfully in derogation of the requirements of the rules or were meant to
run down the appellants. [200 B]

3. However, the appellants' argument that the
relaxation contemplated by r. 14 was restricted by considerations of
"undue hardship" in any "particular case" and that it was
not permissible for the State Government to reduce in the case of the
respondents 4 to 37, the requirement of continuous service from six years to
four for the purpose of eligibility for promotion is correct because r. 14 as
it stood at the relevant time when respondents 4 to 37 were promoted did not
permit any general relaxation of the nature ordered by the State Government in
1963 or 1965.

The amended r. 14 could not avail the State
Government because it came into force much later in January, 1969. [198 G-H,
199 C]

4. The argument that only those inspectors
who had been confirmed as inspectors and held that post substantively were
eligible for promotion is not correct. To accept that would only mean that an
inspector who had put in six years' officiating service would not be eligible
for promotion if he had not been confirmed. All that proviso (a) to r. 6
permits is that, in order to be eligible for promotion, an inspector should
have got six years "continuous" service, including service in an
officiating as well as substantive capacity. [198 C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 1849 of 1972.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated 10-11-1970 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W. No. 2547
of 1970.

Y. S. Chitale and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the
Appellant.

Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for Respondents
Nos. 2 and 3.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated November 10, 1970, by which the writ
petition of the appellants was dismissed on the ground that the promotions
challenged by them were made on the basis of list "G" of 1966 when
they had not qualified for promotion. It has therefore to be examined whether
that view of the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

A list of dates bearing on the controversy
has been furnished by Mr. Y. S. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellants,
and we have been told by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is
correct. The facts which emerge from that list may be stated briefly for
learned counsel agree that they are quite sufficient for the disposal of the
appeal 196 All the three appellants were appointed Inspectors of Police, by
direct recruitment, on May 21, 1963, on a probationary period of three years.
At that time the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959. hereinafter referred to as
the Rules, were in force, providing for appointment to the higher post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police For purposes of this appeal, it will be
sufficient to say that rule 6 of the Rules provided that recruitment to the
Punjab Police Service, consisting of the cadre of Deputy Superintendents of
Police, shall be made by promotion to the extent of eighty percent from the
rank of Inspector and twenty percent by direct appointment. That was subject to
the proviso that only those Inspectors would be eligible for promotion who had
put in six years continuous service. It appears that as there were many
vacancies in the posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police, the State
Government took a decision on August 21, 1963, that the minimum requirement of
six years continuous service for eligibility for promotion may be reduced to
four years if about fifty percent of the vacancies were to be filled in any
year; and an executive order to that effect was issued some time in 1965 under
rule 14 of the Rules as it stood until its amendment on January 28, 1969. The
State Government accordingly promoted the respondents Nos. 4 to 37 as
officiating Deputy Superintendents of Police on ad hoc basis. As it was the
requirement of sub-rule (2) of rule 6 of the Rules that appointments by
promotion would be made from Inspectors "brought on list 'G' which will be
a list of officers considered fit for promotion to the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, prepared by Government in consultation with the
Commission," a list was prepared by the State Government and it was sent
for the approval of the Public Service Commission on January 7, 1966. The
appellants were confirmed as Inspectors on September 10, 1966 with
retrospective effect from May 21, 1966. The Government took up the question of
regularising the ad hoc promotions of respondents Nos. 4 to 37 pending the
approval of the draft list 'G' by the Commission. A supplementary list was
prepared of Inspectors who had completed four years service after January 7,
1966, and it was sent to the Commission on September 29, 1966. Before the two
lists could be examined by the Commission, the State of Punjab was
reconstituted on November 1, 1966. The Commission thereupon sent a letter on
December 30, 1966, to the Inspector General of Police, asking for information about
the allocation of the police officers to the reorganised States and for
information regarding the vacancies which remained to be filled in the State.
The Inspector General of Police sent a reply on February 8, 1967. The
appellants completed four years of continuous service on May 21, 1967. While
the aforesaid two lists of 197 1966 were pending with the Commission for the
preparation of list 'G', the State Government substituted a new rule 14 on
January 28, 1969. The appellants completed six years of service on May 21,
1969. The Public Service Commission asked for a seniority list of Inspectors
some time in 1970, and ultimately approved the list 'G' on September 7, 1970,
consisting of the names in the two lists which had been sent by the State
Government in 1966. The names of respondents Nos. 4 to 37 were thus included in
that list but it did not contain the names of the appellants. They felt
aggrieved and filed a writ petition in the High Court in September 1970, but it
was dismissed by the High Court on November 10, 1970, as aforesaid. That is why
they have come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.

Before examining the arguments which have
been advanced before us, it will be proper to make a brief reference to the
salient points mentioned in the reply of the State Government. It was stated
there that a large number of vacancies occurred in the cadre of Deputy
Superintendents of Police because several battalions of the Police force had to
be sent to the Punjab-Pakistan border and it became necessary for the State
Government to fill those vacancies immediately. The State Government had
therefore, to reduce the minimum requirement of six years service for
eligibility to appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police to
four years. The State Government mentioned the circumstances in which it had to
send two lists to the Commission in 1966 for the preparation of list 'G' and
its ultimate approval by the Commission on September 7, 1970.

The lists, it was pointed out, were prepared
as in 1966, by which date the appellants had not completed four years service
as Inspectors. That, according to the respondents, was the reason why their
names could not be brought on that list. It was categorically stated that no
names were recommended for inclusion in that list during the years 1967, 1969
and 1970, and that the assertion of the appellants to the contrary was
incorrect.

It is in the light of these facts and
circumstances that we shall examine the arguments which have been advanced
before us by the learned counsel for the appellants. The main controversy is
that relating to the meaning and the application of rule 6(1) of the Rules
which provides as follows,- "6. Method of recruitment.-(1) Recruitment to
the Service shall be made- (i) Eighty per cent by promotion from the rank of
Inspector and twenty per cent by direct appointment:

198 Provided that only those Inspectors will
be eligible for promotion who- (a) in the case of Inspectors (both promoted
from subordinate rank and directly recruited) have got six years continuous
service (officiating as well as substantive) in the rank of Inspector:

and" We are not concerned with part (b)
of the proviso as it relates to the promotion of Prosecuting Inspectors.

It has been argued that only those Inspectors
were eligible for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police who had been
confirmed as Inspector and held that post on a substantive basis. A reading of
part (a) of the proviso shows however that it cannot be said to restrict the
eligibility for promotion only to the substantive holders of the post of
Inspector. All that it permits is that, in order to be eligible for promotion,
the Inspectors should have got six years "continuous" service,
including service in an officiating as well as substantive capacity. We are
therefore unable to think that an Inspector who had put in six years
officiating service was not eligible for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of
Police.

It has next been argued that the requirement
of six years service could not be relaxed by the State Government on August 21,
1963, or thereafter in 1965, because rule 14 of the Rules as it stood until its
substitution on January 28, 1969, read as follows,- "Where the Government
is satisfied that the operation of any of the rules causes undue hardship in
any particular case, it may, by order, dispense with or relax the requirement
of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider
necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner, provided
that the case is not dealt with in a manner less favourable to the person
concerned than provided by the relevant rule." It has therefore been urged
that the relaxation contemplated by that rule was restricted by considerations
of "undue hardship", in any "particular case", and that it
was not permissible for the State Government to reduce the requirement of
continuous service from six years to four years for purposes of eligibility for
promotion to the Punjab Police Service. The argument is correct because rule 14
as it stood at the relevant period of time when promotions of respondents (Nos.
4 to 37) were made, did not permit any general relaxation of the 199 nature
ordered by the State Government in 1963 or 1965. It is true that rule 14 was
amended and a new rule was inserted on January 28, 1969, to the following
effect- "7. General power to relax rules.-where the Government is of the
opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules
with respect to any class or category of persons." That was a rule of
general application, and it appears that there is justification for the
argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that it could not authorise
the kind of relaxation which was made by the State Government in 1963 and in
1965, but the fact remains that it could not avail the State Government as the
new rule came into force much later on January 28, 1969. It would thus follow
that the respondents were not eligible for promotion because the relaxation
which was ordered in 1963 and 1965 was not warranted by the old rule 14 as it
stood at that time. The question however remains whether the appellants could
possibly succeed in their appeal before us for that reason.

While examining this aspect of the matter we
shall have regard to the requirement of rule 6, as it stood before its
amendment on January 28, 1969 and disregard the relaxation orders of 1963 and
1965 as they were not warranted by the provisions of that rule. And as that
rule made a clear provision that only those Inspectors would be eligible for
promotion who had got six years continuous service as Inspectors, it would
follow that the appellants were not eligible for promotion until May 21, 1969
as they had been appointed only on May 21, 1963. In other words, they were not
eligible for inclusion in list 'G', which was prepared under sub-rule (2) of
rule 6, as it was prepared in 1966 on the basis of the State Government's
recommendations dated January 7, 1966, and September 29, 1966. It may be recalled that the State Government have categorically stated that they did not
send any list thereafter, for the Commission's approval. We have made a
reference to the facts and circumstances in which the Commission did not find
it possible to finalise list 'G' until 1970, but the fact remains that the list
contained names up to the year 1966. In other words, the final list 'G' related
only to the year 1966, and as the appellants had not put in even four years of
service by then, what to say of six years service in terms of clause (a) of the
proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 6 of the Rules, their names could not possibly
be included in that list. When that was so, they could not have been promoted
as Deputy Superintendent of 200 Police because that was the basic requirement
of sub-rule (2) of that rule. We have made a reference to the circumstances in
which the State Government was driven to the necessity of making some ad hoc or
temporary promotions because of the extraordinary situation which had developed
on the border of the State, and as it was the Public Service Commission which
delayed the finalisation of list 'G', it cannot be said that the ad hoc
appointments of the respondents were wilfully made in derogation of the requirement
of the Rules, or were meant to run down the appellants. In fact, as has been
explained above, the appellants were, in any view of the matter, not eligible
for promotion as their names were not included in list 'G' as it emerged from
the Public Service Commission in 1970. The High Court therefore cannot be
blamed if it took the view that as the appellants had not qualified for
promotion when list 'G' was drawn up by the State Government in 1966, they
could not succeed in their claim in the writ petition. Their names did not
appear in list 'G' which was approved by the Commission in 1970, whereas the
names of respondents Nos. 4 to 37 appeared in it and it is not in dispute that
they had all completed 6 years' continuous service much before the appellants.
The appellants have not therefore been able to show that they had any legal
right for promotion before the respondents.

There is thus no force in the arguments which
have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the appeal is
dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we shall leave the parties to bear
their own costs.